#84

There might be a difference in the reaction of the “community” to a positive vs negative report for sure, everyone has their own biases.

But there’s also a difference between a positive report saying “I took rapa and saw improvements on x over time and whenever I stop it x gets worse” and a negative one saying “I took rapa and months later got something bad and it stayed even after stopping rapa but I attribute this bad event to rapa”. The first case is falsifiable (which doesn’t make it true): you can theoretically prove the causation. The second one is not (even though it might be correct!): you have no way to prove it. So it’s perfectly normal in this case to be skeptical. If someone comes and say “Whenever I take more than 4 mg of rapa per week I get skin rashes” you wouldn’t have these reactions, because it’s a falsifiable statement.

(I say this as someone not taking rapa and who thinks the risk/reward ratio isn’t worth it for most people as of today)

1 Like
#85

I don’t agree with your spin of what he actually said, which is:

‘Later, while still on Rapamycin, I contracted herpes and experienced an unusually severe outbreak. From what I’ve learned, the intensity of the initial outbreak often dictates the severity of future recurrences, and since then, I have faced frequent, relentless outbreaks. I believe this is due to the immunosuppressive effects of Rapamycin.’

If the bolded part is true (and I have no idea if it is), then the presumption that follows (‘I believe this is due to the immunosuppressive effects of Rapamycin’) seems justifiable.

If the inital infection was made worse by rapa, and the level of severity of additional infections is related to the severity of the initial infection, then the 'I believe…; part clearly follows.

You seem to be using ‘falsifiable’ in a way doesn’t comport with my understanding of the usual usage.

That’s a novel use of ‘falsifiable’.

#86

And this is why we have clinical trials…

1 Like
#87

More press recently, which I think is good as it gets people who are interested searching to learn more:

3 Likes
#88

This one has a much more positive spin. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#89

I prefer low to no hype anyhow. keeps my rapamycin cheap. attention can be a curse.

6 Likes
#90

You’ll be fine … right now with an internal coupon at CVS I had a patient get 45 mg of Rapamycin for $28 and change. Cheapest I’ve seen. But yes, we don’t want shortages, but most of us stockpile and will somehow make it through.

4 Likes
#91

Rapamycin continues to make waves in the media world… today in Newsweek:

3 Likes
#92

Medpage …

2 Likes
#93

I do believe that rapamycin might be the cause of their initial intense herpes outbreak. But I say that contrary to the falsifiable (“able to be proved to be false”) example I gave, here we can’t prove anything, unfortunately. As I said, a young healthy friend of mine who has never used rapa (or any drug) and who also suddenly developed intense and recurrent (a few times per year) herpes and shingles outbreaks attributes this to the Covid vaccine. But here again it’s not falsifiable. In both cases we would need large scale data to confirm the association and therefore that the hypothesis (rapa, the Covid vaccine or whatever) is plausible. And only a clinical trial (or Mendelian randomization?) might really prove the causality and confirm the hypothesis.

Actually, in the case of my friend we have that kind of data:

Do we have the same quality of evidence for sirolimus use and herpes outbreaks? There are thousands organ transplantation recipients using sirolimus, so we should have data on that. And actually a quick search leads to the exact opposite conclusion: sirolimus seems to help in case of a herpes outbreak @anon99478646:

  • Sirolimus-based immunosuppression for treatment of cutaneous warts in kidney transplant recipients 2011: “We report here 2 cases of kidney transplant recipients who developed diffuse human papillomavirus-induced cutaneous warts with no response to conventional treatments. According to similar reports in organ transplant recipients, we modified the immunosuppressive regimen by converting to sirolimus, which led to a rapid relief from cutaneous warts in both patients. This evidence along with other case reports suggest that conversion to sirolimus may be considered as an effective strategy in cases of giant or multiple viral warts in kidney and perhaps other transplant recipients.”
  • Human Herpesviruses 6, 7 and 8 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients 2013:" Other alternatives for treatment, especially for HHV-8 diseases not responsive to immuno-minimization strategies, are surgery and chemotherapy. Sirolimus has been shown to be a beneficial component for the treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma and the role of antivirals for HHV-8 infection is being investigated."

In God we trust, all others must bring data.

4 Likes
#94

But I’ve seen plenty of severe HSV infections and not a one were on Rapamycin. The issue is this happens without Rapamycin being present. I however won’t discount the possibility, but it makes more sense to me, to think that the HSV infection might have been more severe without the Rapamycin.
Anyway, I suspect this will be impossible to assess causality one way or the other.

3 Likes
#95

I think when cells have a higher level of cytosolic acetyl-CoA they can generate more cytosolic ROS and can use this to fight viruses or other localised things that the body really wants to get rid of.

1 Like
#96

There is an interesting aspect of this which I think relates to remodelling the body (and particularly skin). Older people tend to have lumps on their faces which younger people don’t have. It appears that increasing cytosolic-ROS availability enables the skin to remodel more subtly and remove those blemishes (slowly).

1 Like
#97

The rapamycin did not contribute to me getting genital herpes, but it probably contributed to making the first outbreak much worse. The initial infection dictates how frequent recurrences will be in the future.

#98

Yes, Rapamycin would make the infection worse because it lowers the immune response if the dose is not right.

1 Like
#99

Exactly, I think the rapamycin led to immune suppression in my case. I’ve had similar experiences with other anti-aging interventions—NAD, fisetin, metformin—and none of them have worked for me. Rapamycin doesn’t seem any different. It doesn’t repair DNA damage or really protect organs in the way it’s often claimed to. A once a week dose might sound good in theory, but it’s largely ineffective and can still cause side effects without offering the benefits people expect.

#100

India media report too.

1 Like
#101

My own personal experience is that rapamycin acts to encourage mitochondrial efficiency.

2 Likes
#102

I looked at the article, and I agree that Bryan Johnson is a great advocate for anti-aging and has contributed a lot to the conversation. However, some of the things he’s done—like blood transfusions, metformin, and high doses of multivitamins—aren’t necessarily the right approach for everyone. Ultimately, you have to make your own informed decision. There’s no perfect solution, and even AI and experts can be wrong. Everyone is figuring it out as they go.

2 Likes
#103

That’s interesting! Out of curiosity, do you have any lab results showing how many mitochondria you have or how their efficiency changed?

2 Likes